The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Colin Parkinson]

The NDP used to be the "workers" party. They aren't, really, anymore, but recent shifts in voter allegiances in the US might have the NDP thinking how to shift itself before it loses too much of that group. That most likely requires not being hostile towards basic firearms.

those workers were worth their weight in gold, they are far more likely to vote, donate and volunteer than the new breed of NDP voters. The CPC should have done the divide and conquer thing with the union worker vs union management. Promising a lot of big project with a fair shake for union workers to get. It's mostly the union management that is far left types and the workers are more concerned about paychecks and jobs.

 

[Good2Golf]

the workers are more concerned about paychecks and jobs.

Well, when you’re ‘middle class’ in name only, providing a roof over head and food on the table becomes more than just a buzz-phrase to a trust fund beneficiary…

 

[calculus]

It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do. The CCFR made a bonehead move. Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?

Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:

Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.

firearmrights.ca

 

[Weinie]

It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do. The CCFR made a bonehead move. Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?

One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban. She is persona non grata in the firearms community. She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.

And plus, she has plenty of bucks left to do it. According to the Sunshine list, she made just less than 300K last year.

 

[Weinie]

Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:

Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.

firearmrights.ca

That is the right Jesus most pacifist/conciliatory statement that I have ever seen. Are you sure that is their true statement?

 

[Booter]

Why wouldn’t they explain a little more than that- like how “poly” fits into it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why wouldn’t they explain a little more than that- like how “poly” fits into it.

The more you explain yourself and/or apologize on Twitter the more outraged people become and the more blood they demand.

 

[Furniture]

Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:

Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.

firearmrights.ca

It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.

 

[Weinie]

It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.

Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The more you explain yourself and/or apologize on Twitter the more outraged people become and the more blood they demand.

Exactly. Say nothing and move on.

It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.

Bingo.

 

[Booter]

Okay guys. They would have been better off not saying anything. A person like me- completely divorced from the entire thing and wanted to know the “real story” doesn’t get it. I am the target audience.

People involved don’t think anything of
It. Outraged people are going to be outraged. But the silent middle who wanted to understand can’t from that comment.

That’s not pandering. That’s communicating. If you want people to understand- you have to Try and communicate. That “statement” doesn’t communicate anything.

 

[Furniture]

Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument.

It's an argument reason and facts can't win.

If there is a master plan here I can't wait to see it, because right now this is just working against the CCFR and gun owners.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I have an Alberta veterans plate on my truck. The truck is not adorned with any "Fuck Anybody" stickers or anything political. It has a CHIMO plate on the front. The plate has three letters and two numbers on it. The two numbers are 88. Care to guess how many rabid weirdos have accosted me for it? I had to google it to figure out wtf they were blabbering about. I laugh mightily every time. Rabid gonna rabid.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.

 

[KevinB]

Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.

But it's different this time...

 

[ArmyRick]

Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns. I'd hate for this to be me or one of my family members.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mona-wang-lacy-browning-kelowna-rcmp-wellness-check-assault-charge-1.6150736

I will pass on any "wellness" check that results in a mountie stepping on my head (not that it would make me any dumber, I pretty much hit rock bottom awhile ago).

Say there, Das Fuhrer Trudeau, is this your Canada?

 

[Weinie]

Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.

I think a convening of discussion on your post would be the next step.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I think a convening of discussion on your post would be the next step.

I pillaged that from elsewhere, but it's kind of an eye opener.

 

[Dana381]

Trudeau has to get rid of ALL the guns in Canada so in the next pandemic he can follow hi idol Xi's example and weld people into their homes

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1703503427818

 

[Weinie]

I pillaged that from elsewhere, but it's kind of an eye opener.

YUP.